Latest blog articles

Universality is the idea that universal facts exist and can be progressively discovered, whereas relativism denies the existence of universal facts. It follows that universality presupposes a system of universal values applicable to all human beings, which is denied by relativism.

Those of you who were old enough to follow news headlines in the 90’s will probably remember this quote. For those of you who don’t: it is a famous phrase used by the defence team of O.J. Simpson in an – as would later turn out: successful – attempt to convince the jury of O.J.’s innocence.

25 years after the Genocide Against the Tutsi, the denial of this genocide still poses a serious challenge to prevention and reconciliation. How to address this problem was one of the central questions discussed during a recent commemorative conference in the Peace Palace.

What does the retrial of genocide convict Augustin Ngirabatware mean for international criminal law and the victims of the 1994 genocide?

Expensive medicines are a ubiquitous challenge from which no government is immune. Excessive price hikes are an urgent human rights issue with serious ramifications for public health.

UN treaty bodies are committees of independent experts in charge of monitoring state compliance with the major UN human rights treaties.

This post opines that the universalist/relativist debate on human rights is not as divisive as it initially seems – rather than to undermine universalism in its entirety, cultural relativism serves as a reminder to constantly re-evaluate our assumptions on human rights to promote inclusivity.

The debate around the universality of human rights is legitimate and long-lasting.

Over the past decades, universality as the cornerstone of human rights has been constantly challenged by non-western societies. Legitimacy and western political hegemony intent are the underlying grounds. In the battle between universality and cultural relativism, which one should prevail?

Recent scholarship has suggested that cognitive biases shape the processing of any information about mass atrocities, essentially pushing individuals (at an unconscious level) to believe what they want to believe and reason about the ICTY and its work in a way that is most protective of their own